Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Rapid versus standard testing for prenatal HIV screening in a predominantly Hispanic population

Journal of Perinatology volume 30, pages 30–32 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to examine the false positive rate of the OraQuick rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) test compared with the ELISA test in pregnant patients of low socioeconomic status.

Study Design:

Blood samples from pregnant patients collected between 10 February 2005 and 1 June 2005 were tested with HIV ELISA and OraQuick rapid HIV tests. The positive predictive values of both tests were calculated.

Result:

Of 910 patients, 14 (1.5%) patients had a positive HIV ELISA test, with only 5 patients confirmed for HIV. The positive predictive value for the ELISA test was 35.7% compared with 100% for the OraQuick rapid test.

Conclusion:

In a predominantly low socioeconomic Hispanic patient population with a 0.5% HIV prevalence, false positive HIV testing is lower for the OraQuick rapid HIV test compared with the HIV ELISA test. Implementation of the rapid HIV test would mitigate the emotional distress and unnecessary intrapartum and neonatal zidovudine treatments associated with false positive HIV testing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control Prevention. Recommendations for the U S. Public Health Service Task Force on the use of zidovudine to reduce prenatal transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. MMWR Recomm Rep 1994; 43 (RR-11): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Centers for Disease Control Prevention. U S. Public Health Service Recommendations for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Counseling and Voluntary Testing for Pregnant Women. MMWR Recomm Rep 1995; 44 (44-7): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lampe M, Branson S, Paul S, Burr C, Gross E, Eicher C et al. Rapid HIV-1 antibody testing during labor and delivery for women of unknown HIV status: a practical guide and model protocol. Centers for Disease Control. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/rapid_testing/rt-labor&delivery.htm. Accessed April 24 2006.

  4. Minkoff H, O’Sullivan MJ . The case for rapid HIV testing during labor. JAMA 1998; 279 (21): 1743–1744.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Centers for Disease Control Prevention. Revised recommendations for HIV screening of pregnant women. MMWR Recomm Rep 2001; 50 (RR-19): 63–85.

    Google Scholar 

  6. McKenna MT, Hu X . Recent trends in the incidence and morbidity that are associated with perinatal human immunodeficiency virus in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197 (3 Suppl): S10–S16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bulterys M, Jamieson DJ, O’Sullivan MJ, Cohen MH, Maupin R, Nesheim S et al. Rapid HIV-1 testing during labor: a multicenter study. JAMA 2004; 292 (2): 219–223.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Moskowitz CS, Pepe MS . Comparing the predictive values of diagnostic tests: sample size and analysis for paired study designs. Clin Trials 2006; 3: 272–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wade NA, Birkhead GS, Warren BL, Charbonneau TT, French PT, Wang L et al. Abbreviated regimens of zidovudine prophylaxis and perinatal transmission of human immunodeficiency virus. N Engl J Med 1998; 339 (20): 1409–1414.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Doran TI, Parra E . False-positive and indeterminate human immunodeficiency virus test results in pregnant women. Arch Fam Med 2000; 9 (9): 924–929.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenwald JL, Burstein GR, Pincus J, Branson B . A rapid review of rapid HIV antibody tests. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2006; 8: 135–141. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/testing/resources/journal_article/pdf/rapid_review.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Doyle NM, Levison JE, Gardner MO . Rapid HIV versus enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay screening in a low-risk Mexican American population presenting in labor: a cost-effective analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193 (3 Part 2): 1280–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA

    C S Tung, H Sangi-Haghpeykar & J Levison

Authors
  1. C S Tung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H Sangi-Haghpeykar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J Levison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J Levison.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tung, C., Sangi-Haghpeykar, H. & Levison, J. Rapid versus standard testing for prenatal HIV screening in a predominantly Hispanic population. J Perinatol 30, 30–32 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2009.122

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2009.122

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links